Can the scientific method be applied to study supernatural phenomena?

[gnostic]

It sure can. As long as it has observable effects on the material world and makes predictions, it can be tested, falsified or confirmed. Indeed, it is essential for religious apologists that cosmology shows (according to them, at least) that the universe began to exist -- which would confirm the predictions made in Genesis.

Anyway, you got the idea.

The Universe having a beginning, don’t confirm Genesis creation story at all, because there are lot more to the universe, lot more to the Solar System AND LOT MORE TO THE EARTH, that don’t align with Genesis creation.

According to the Big Bang model, stars and galaxies were formed before the Solar System. The oldest stars (eg a low-mass subgiant star only 200 light years from Earth, called HD 140283) in the Milky Way, are about 13 billion years old, whereas our Sun is about 4.8 billion years old.

But in Genesis 1:1, Earth was created before stars, which stars didn’t exist until the 4th creative day. In fact, plants and vegetation (3rd day, after creation of dry lands) existed before the the stars and Sun (4th day).

Beside that, there are 2 versions of Genesis creation (chapters 1& 2), in which conflict and contradict each other, particularly the order of creations differed from one another, regarding to plants, animals and human.

Lastly, Genesis 1 & 2 provide so very little information about WHAT it say about the world, and definitely nothing on HOW the world works. Plus “god did it” is merely superstition, not observations of nature or the natural processes. So basically give no more information than contemporary creation myths of Egypt, Babylonia or Greece...

...and basically the Hebrew (Genesis) creation is only adaption or rehashing of Babylonian creation myths (eg Enūma Eliš) and Genesis Flood is nothing more than rehash of Babylonian Flood myths (eg the older Epic of Atrahasis & Epic of Gilgamesh).

There are no older surviving Genesis texts about the creation or flood stories, surviving before the 6th century BCE Babylonian Exile, so this is probably when the Jews created their own version of the Babylonian myths.

So instead of have multitude of gods that played roles in Babylonian epics, the exiled Jews rewrote the pagan myths, so there are only one god (Elohim) in Genesis.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

It sure can. As long as it has observable effects on the material world and makes predictions, it can be tested, falsified or confirmed. Indeed, it is essential for religious apologists that cosmology shows (according to them, at least) that the universe began to exist -- which would confirm the predictions made in Genesis.

Anyway, you got the idea.

Doesn't that change the definition of supernatural to the natural?

 

[ADigitalArtist]

Doesn't that change the definition of supernatural to the natural?

That's what I think. All that tells you is that there was a natural effect. Not anything about the supernatural thing, or even that the supernatural thing caused the natural thing.

The fundamental problem is that a unnatural force having a natural effect is incomprehensible and undemonstrable.

 

[Magical Wand]

Doesn't that change the definition of supernatural to the natural?

What do you mean, Dan? I'm not sure I understand where you're coming from.

 

[Magical Wand]

The Universe having a beginning, don’t confirm Genesis creation story at all, because there are lot more to the universe, lot more to the Solar System AND LOT MORE TO THE EARTH, that don’t align with Genesis creation.
According to the Big Bang model, stars and galaxies were formed before the Solar System. The oldest stars (eg a low-mass subgiant star only 200 light years from Earth, called HD 140283) in the Milky Way, are about 13 billion years old, whereas our Sun is about 4.8 billion years old.
But in Genesis 1:1, Earth was created before stars, which stars didn’t exist until the 4th creative day. In fact, plants and vegetation (3rd day, after creation of dry lands) existed before the the stars and Sun (4th day).
Beside that, there are 2 versions of Genesis creation (chapters 1& 2), in which conflict and contradict each other, particularly the order of creations differed from one another, regarding to plants, animals and human.

Old-Earth religious apologists are aware of these issues, and that's why many of them don't take Genesis literally, but rather symbolically. For example, they wouldn't say there was a heavenly Garden with a talking snake, but they would argue that Adam and Eve were the first humans with souls who sinned and etc.

Regarding the creation sequence, they would say it doesn't matter (that it doesn't "align" with the sequence presented by modern science) because it is not a literal story. But it does contain truths, according to them, since it depicts the formation of Earth and life (as well as human creation).

 

[gnostic]

Old-Earth religious apologists are aware of these issues, and that's why many of them don't take Genesis literally, but rather symbolically. For example, they wouldn't say there was a heavenly Garden with a talking snake, but they would argue that Adam and Eve were the first humans with souls who sinned and etc.

Regarding the creation sequence, they would say it doesn't matter (that it doesn't "align" with the sequence presented by modern science) because it is not a literal story. But it does contain truths, according to them, since it depicts the formation of Earth and life (as well as human creation).

I am well aware that Old Earth creationists have different interpretations than interpretations from those Young Earth creationists.

But whether the Genesis to be taken as literal or as symbolic (or as allegory), i still have problems with both sides claiming they have the “truths”.

I do actually agree with you in regards that Genesis stories, like creation, flood and the Tower of Babel should be interpreted as allegories, but I don’t think OEC Is any better at finding what are “true”.

Religions understanding of what are “truths”, are messy, requiring a lot of mental contortions or mental acrobatics to arrive at what they believed to be “truths”. And that’s why I skeptical of even with OEC interpretations as much as with YEC interpretations, to be as unreliable, because it still rely on the Bible being the benchmark for what being “true”, whether it to be literal or symbolic.

Both sides relied on very subjective beliefs and subjective interpretations. And while OE creationists tried to agree with science to certain extent, there is still the problem with God, as the Creator.

Just how do “God” fit in with the OEC outlook?

How does God fit in with Genesis creation, or is God just allegorical character (like that of Adam, Eve, Cain, Noah, Nimrod, etc) in the book?

 

[paarsurrey]

Can the scientific method be applied to study supernatural phenomena?

Can the scientific method be applied to the ism of the Atheists, please?
I don't think so. Right?

Regards

 

[gnostic]

Can the scientific method be applied to the ism of the Atheists, please?

It doesn’t matter what -ism you are talking about - theism, atheism, agnosticism, deism, pantheism, Hinduism, Buddhism, Taoism, etc, they are all either religious belief, lack of belief or philosophical stance, they all have nothing to do with science, so it would be waste of time to use “Scientific Method”.

Atheism only deal with the question of the existence of a deity or deities and nothing else. Atheism don’t deal with natural sciences or physical sciences.

Scientific Method is only used on falsifiable and testable models formulated to study either natural phenomena or physical phenomena.

Gods, angels, demons, jinns, miracles, resurrection, reincarnation, and so on, are neither falsifiable, nor testable.

When are you going to learn and understand that atheism have nothing to do with science, just as theism have nothing to do with science?

I am quite sure I have told you all this before. Are you incapable of learning?

 

[Dan From Smithville]

What do you mean, Dan? I'm not sure I understand where you're coming from.

If it can be tested, doesn't that make it subject to natural laws and not supernatural?

 

[Magical Wand]

If it can be tested, doesn't that make it subject to natural laws and not supernatural?

I don't see how that follows, Dan. It seems you're suggesting that just because the supernatural shares some properties with the natural, it must also be natural. I don't see how that follows. To prove your case, you would have to show that testability is an essential and exclusive property of material things, i.e., would have to show that supernatural things cannot even in principle be testable.

 

[paarsurrey]

It doesn’t matter what -ism you are talking about - theism, atheism, agnosticism, deism, pantheism, Hinduism, Buddhism, Taoism, etc, they are all either religious belief, lack of belief or philosophical stance, they all have nothing to do with science, so it would be waste of time to use “Scientific Method”.

Atheism only deal with the question of the existence of a deity or deities and nothing else. Atheism don’t deal with natural sciences or physical sciences.

Scientific Method is only used on falsifiable and testable models formulated to study either natural phenomena or physical phenomena.

Gods, angels, demons, jinns, miracles, resurrection, reincarnation, and so on, are neither falsifiable, nor testable.

When are you going to learn and understand that atheism have nothing to do with science, just as theism have nothing to do with science?

I am quite sure I have told you all this before. Are you incapable of learning?

" atheism have nothing to do with science "

Thanks and regards

 

[paarsurrey]

And Atheism is an ism , alright.
Regards

 

[gnostic]

" atheism have nothing to do with science "

Thanks and regards

Yes. But I must stressed that theism also have nothing to do with science.

Both of them - theism and atheism - only deal with the question of the “existence of deity” or deities. Theists believe in the existence and atheists don’t believe in the existence.

That’s all either sides do.

Sciences on the other hand, is where people tried to understand the physical or natural phenomena and processes, what they are and how they work, and they do this by formulating models (eg hypothesis, theory),

1. trying to explain the phenomena and processes,
2. apply logic to the explanations (eg mathematical equations),
3. and make predictions based on preliminary observations...

...all of which they can they test the above with observations, evidence and data gathering and/or experiments. And that’s the important part of Scientific Method.

Testing and analyzing the evidence, test results and data, are essential parts of science, in which can determine (A) if the models are valid and true, (B) if the models are wrong and refuted, and can be thrown out.

A & B outcomes actually demonstrate the models are at the very least FALSIFIABLE, meaning the models are testable. Even with B, there are evidence that refuted the models, is a good thing to know.

But there is 3rd outcome (C), where there are no observations, no evidence. This is where the models are UNFALSIFIABLE, UNTESTABLE.

Such a model is deemed pseudoscience (not science): useless trash, garbage. Intelligent Design (especially Irreducible Complexity) and the Kalam Cosmological Argument are such pseudoscience and useless garbages. Both tried to assert “god did it”, whether you would call this god, Designer or Creator.

God, and everything religious that are related to God, eg spirits, angels, demons, heaven and hell, resurrection and reincarnation miracles, creation, prophecies, talking serpent or ants, etc, all of them are all unfalsifiable, therefore cannot be tested.

Hence, you cannot apply scientific method upon god and everything else that I had mentioned. You cannot test god.

Sciences are accumulated tested knowledge, and scientists are professionals with professions that required some knowledge of sciences. It is their jobs to understand and use science for their respective works.

Theists and atheists are not job titles, there are no professions in theism or atheism.

Do not confuse science with theism or with atheism.

Most theists can distinguish between science and religions, but the sad facts are there are some theists (eg YEC & ID creationists) who cannot separate the two. Those creationists are not only doing disservice to science, but also to their respective religions.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I don't see how that follows, Dan. It seems you're suggesting that just because the supernatural shares some properties with the natural, it must also be natural. I don't see how that follows. To prove your case, you would have to show that testability is an essential and exclusive property of material things, i.e., would have to show that supernatural things cannot even in principle be testable.

I am thinking about that and how to better phrase the question.

 

[paarsurrey]

Yes. But I must stressed that theism also have nothing to do with science.

Both of them - theism and atheism - only deal with the question of the “existence of deity” or deities. Theists believe in the existence and atheists don’t believe in the existence.

That’s all either sides do.

Sciences on the other hand, is where people tried to understand the physical or natural phenomena and processes, what they are and how they work, and they do this by formulating models (eg hypothesis, theory),

1. trying to explain the phenomena and processes,
2. apply logic to the explanations (eg mathematical equations),
3. and make predictions based on preliminary observations...

...all of which they can they test the above with observations, evidence and data gathering and/or experiments. And that’s the important part of Scientific Method.

Testing and analyzing the evidence, test results and data, are essential parts of science, in which can determine (A) if the models are valid and true, (B) if the models are wrong and refuted, and can be thrown out.

A & B outcomes actually demonstrate the models are at the very least FALSIFIABLE, meaning the models are testable. Even with B, there are evidence that refuted the models, is a good thing to know.

But there is 3rd outcome (C), where there are no observations, no evidence. This is where the models are UNFALSIFIABLE, UNTESTABLE.

Such a model is deemed pseudoscience (not science): useless trash, garbage. Intelligent Design (especially Irreducible Complexity) and the Kalam Cosmological Argument are such pseudoscience and useless garbages. Both tried to assert “god did it”, whether you would call this god, Designer or Creator.

God, and everything religious that are related to God, eg spirits, angels, demons, heaven and hell, resurrection and reincarnation miracles, creation, prophecies, talking serpent or ants, etc, all of them are all unfalsifiable, therefore cannot be tested.

Hence, you cannot apply scientific method upon god and everything else that I had mentioned. You cannot test god.

Sciences are accumulated tested knowledge, and scientists are professionals with professions that required some knowledge of sciences. It is their jobs to understand and use science for their respective works.

Theists and atheists are not job titles, there are no professions in theism or atheism.

Do not confuse science with theism or with atheism.

Most theists can distinguish between science and religions, but the sad facts are there are some theists (eg YEC & ID creationists) who cannot separate the two. Those creationists are not only doing disservice to science, but also to their respective religions.

" Both of them - theism and atheism "

Both of these are terms used in "philosophy", neither related to religion nor to science, please:

theism (n.)
1670s, "belief in a deity or deities," (as opposed to atheism); by 1711 as "belief in one god" (as opposed to polytheism); by 1714 as "belief in the existence of God as creator and ruler of the universe" (as opposed to deism), the usual modern sense; see theist + -ism.

Theism assumes a living relation of God to his creatures, but does not define it. It differs from deism in that the latter is negative and involves a denial of revelation, while the former is affirmative, and underlies Christianity. One may be a theist and not be a Christian, but he cannot be a Christian and not be a theist. [Century Dictionary]
theism | Origin and meaning of theism by Online Etymology Dictionary
Right?

Regards